According to Frankfurt, the difference between a person and an animal is the matter of concern when making a decision. A person is able to deliberate which option they would prefer regardless if it is the best option for their health or well-being. An animal will go with the decision that drives them for satisfaction without thinking about the deeper consequences of their actions. “…A creature without reason my be a person.” but the creature would be unable to reflect on the will of their own desires which would subdue them as an animal.
“His desires move him to do certain things, without it being true of him either that he wants to be moved by those desires or that he prefers to be moved by other desires.”
A rational being will have an order of desires. There will be the first order of their desires which is the primary mission. There will also be a second order of desires that may conflict with the first order. The article examines how a narcotic addict might think. The drug addict will have the main desire to do the drug while the second desire would be to quit doing the drug. The person would consider each option and the decision would be depending on the conflicts of the desires. The addict will be well aware that it may not be a great idea to do the narcotic but will give in to the higher desire despite the consequences. It will be their decision without an external force trying to persuade one option over the other.
The article discusses how an animal may seem to have a free will however, they do not contain the brain capacity to think out their options. Humans may get frustrated when their desires are being held back by the forces that they have no control of which makes them feel helpless. That does not take away their free will but gives an illusion that their free will is limited.
“A person’s will is only free if he is free to have the will he wants.”
This quote shows how a person’s free will may be limited by the options that are made before them. If they do not have all the options that that person may think of then it is not free will at all. It would be considered to be a freedom of choice of what was given, not what was desired.
Hume would let the public know that they have free will in their actions. Each person would consider the benefits over the consequences before attempting any action. According to the article, a prisoner could ponder multiple ways to get out by either escaping, good behavior, or death. He will go over each event and the effect of each event that will come thereafter. Some philosophers feel that there is no free will for their actions since everything is already predetermined for their future. However, Hume leans more towards the cause and effect idea. This concept could have multiple different endings from the same cause due to underlying factors that may not be obvious.
“…their nature and their operation on the understanding never change.”
So, a person with a good moral compass will be compelled to do what they would consider as the “right” thing to do in that situation. That person may not know that they are merely a pawn in a larger scheme to overthrow another person in power. For example, a servant told to go offer a prince a seafood meal while they are a guest at a hotel would think this would be a courteous deed. Unfortunately, the cook is an undercover assassin that slipped a poisonous substance in the meal without anyone else’s knowledge. If the servant was a greedy person without a good moral compass they could have devoured the meal themselves because the presentation looked so outstanding with their favorite kind of seafood. Showing that each person has the free will to make their own destiny of the future. Hume is convinced that ” the knowledge of men’s inclination and motives” is what drives their free will to a direction to make a cause which will make a certain effect.
I would agree with Hume that everyone is not predetermined to make a certain action but has the power of free will. Depending on the person’s personality and attitude will give each action a certain reaction. There are many reasons why a person would think that a cause and effect is set in stone to happen regardless of what actions they take but I believe that to be false.
Tragedy uses the emotions that are pitiful or fearful in their imitation. This gives dramatic principles which poetry also uses in order to imitate real life. Aristotle seemed to have a negative outlook on art. He viewed it as a distraction for the real world interactions. He would not approve of this generations use of technology. I do not believe that Aristotle has that right view of art. He understands that we let our emotions out with different forms of art but he does not believe it is necessary for everyday life. It broadens the minds, especially in young children, to ponder other options which will assist in critical thinking that will come later in life. It allows different expressions on different subjects which could make the room switch its conversation from controversial to empathetic. People may even argue about the meaning but each piece of art tou
Casual determinism is the act of multiple events that aides in the outcome within the laws of nature. If determinism was true I would assume that I would not try as hard for my goals. I would feel that despite my actions, I could not succeed since that is how my life was determined to be by the natural law of things. My effort to play a sport or learn a specific skill would be useless if I was never meant to strengthen those skills to produce a career or hobby. I would like to believe that I wouldn’t lose the strive to be the best person however, if my probability was out of reach than I could see myself being a very big loser and would think less of myself. I would need to have no doubt that my fixed conclusion is how I foresee it.
I currently want to be a medical attorney so I am well aware of the steps in which it will take to achieve that goal. Determinism is explained to be governing the world if things are a certain way at that time and thereafter so the conclusion will be fixed in compliance of the natural law. It should not be confused with predictability or fate even though they seem similar in the definition. No matter how well or bad I did on my tests, the outcome in fatalism would be the same of me achieving my career or not. Predicting that I will achieve my dream since I have had a great background in my school work would be understandable. Determinism sway the decision depending on how they are at the time and will have the natural law complete the rest by a fixed outcome. The past assists in the direction that a person takes in finalizing an event. They discuss a man wanting a beer since a football game is on the television. There was something appealing about watching men tackle each other and sipping an alcoholic beverage or it could be the day and time. Around five o’ clock on a Sunday sounds like a perfect day for that beverage as well. If the event was slightly different like watching a romantic movie with his lover at nine in the morning, I do not believe he would grab that alcoholic beverage unless he was an alcoholic.
“I am part of their story, as they are part of mine. The narrative of any one life is part of an interlocking set of narratives”
This quote is explaining how each person may be thinking in the first person, in other words, they are the main or lead person in their movie. If each person is thinking they are the main characters than that means that the other people involved are the lesser parts that assist with the adventures. All the “movies” made in the world intertwine in some way by making multiple different versions of that same movie.
My best friend and I went on a road trip to Montana. It was in my manual Toyota Corolla 1990, which seemed like a vehicle that was barely surviving. I did not tell anyone in my family that I was leaving the state let alone anywhere for that matter. Reyn (the best friend) stole her boyfriend’s Tom-Tom navigational system since there was no free applications during that time. We set off on the road to start our movie of spontaneous adventure. We made it there to see familiar faced friends. We only stayed there for one night and then we set forth back home. The car was showing signs of less sturdiness as well as me the driver. Driving for a full day without sleep, i decided to stop and to have a rest after almost running into a construction zone because of the lack of sleep. However, I left the stereo and lights on as we rested. The car died but we got a jump and was back on the road. The car also began to lose the ability to hold gears on the road back to California. It began with a struggle to stay in fifth gear to only having third gear. We both believed we had to start our whole movie/lives over in Oregon where the car decided to not come back alive. Thankfully her boyfriend came and rescued us. To him, he was our knight in shining armor coming to save the damsels in distress.
This story is significant to the respect to my identity that I am willing to take a risk to enjoy my movie. No matter how bad the odds defy me to not go through with something, if I want to conquer it then I shall succeed. Or have someone rescue me if I am too over my head? Either way, I do not regret that decision since I got the opportunity to see some of the states that I was never going to see.
In the movie,”Memento”, there is a murder mystery that is the boggling the viewers minds. To add a mental twist, Leonard (the main character) is struggling with his memory. His short-term memory is so extreme that he decides to write notes about his main life events and people he encounters. He also goes to the extreme by tattooing the clues to his wife’s killer on various areas of his body.
“Memory could change the shape of a room”
This quote brings light to the truth about memory. Hume also agrees with this statement since memory could never be trusted in his eyes. I believe memory can be formed into what someone wants to be the truth. I do not think the notes or our memory is too reliable. Both could be easily changed into something more desirable. Someone could change the notes when the author is unaware or preoccupied while memory could naturally be distorted for a more attractive outcome. I believe Hume would think that Leonard has the same problem as any other person contains. His memory loss is in such an extreme that it is dangerous for his own life to not try to accommodate in some manner.
Leonard exclaims that every person needs a mirror to remind them of who they are. I would agree with this statement. Despite that everyone knows who they are from the inside, there may be things that were forgotten that could only be seen if we look at ourselves. For instance, I could have gotten a scar across my face when I was younger and believe a certain story on how it happened but my mother remembers a different version. I would not even fathom a story if I didn’t see the mark that lays upon my face. Leonard became dependent on the mirrors, notes, and tattoos to tell him what he was suppose to be doing with his life besides just living. I think I would become something different everyday if I didn’t have the people in my life to be my mirror in giving me a remembrance of whom I am. The thought of mirrors to define ourselves fits with Hume’s theory in how we are not relying on our memories since they could be false but on the other people around us. Even though it would be relying on their memory of us, that is more reliable than our own perception.
Hume suggests that the self is nothing more than a perception. He connects our personal identity within our thoughts of our memory. It is a mix of multiple impressions that the person contains about themselves. The idea of our self is perceived by the many trains of thought processes from the connections we have to every emotion we feel. This gives us each a personal and different idea from each other on what we perceive to be ourselves. It must be an interrupted thought to be a valid succession to explain our self.
Hume also discusses how resemblance assists on our memory of what the self is defined as. It gives a flash back to a certain location and incident that happened that day even though it could have happen many years ago. This shapes each person to who they are today. Causation explains how a person must have had past lives that assisted in how the person is in the present day. The mind does not produce a personal identity however, it is considered to be a helping hand in discovering it.
I find his argument quite convincing since there is no true way to prove him wrong. It is a personal opinion to the solution of self identity. I would agree with experiences with causation can make a person act a certain way which, in turn, will change their personality. Someone being raised in a lower poverty community may have a completely different personality if they ended up in an up-scale home with unlimited riches. Neither is bad or good. One may be more preferred over the other but they will effect the person’s attitude and social ques. For Hume to rely solely on memory seems outrageous. According to a Northwestern study, memory is almost warped every time it is recalled. If a memory of yourself seems triumphant however, it was in actual fact a less than spectacular event. A person’s ego will drive their mind into thinking how they would actually like to remember it.
Descartes explains how the mind is separate with the body because the mind thinks. The body is described as a finite substance. He considers that his mind could have been in a different body at a different time. I would agree that that our mind and body could be using dualism. I am not one to argue something I could not be too sure of existing or not.
“To these it is certainly not necessary that I should attribute any author other than myself. ”
He is describing the lack of trust on other people’s opinions on any matter that is not able to be verified with his own senses. If he does not see a person standing in the corner but someone else says there is, he will not believe them. If he does believe them then he is nurturing a thought that is eminent.
The source of his ideas come from his own mind. However, he feels like his thoughts were strayed or biased into thinking the way it does by his social circle. Descartes believes a past life could be to blame for what ideas appear in his head.
“In the same way, when I perceive that I now exist and further recollect that I have in former times existed, and when I remember that I have various thoughts of which I can recognize the number, I acquire ideas of duration and number which I can afterwards transfer to any object that I please.”
“For how would it be possible that I should know that I doubt and desire, that is to say, that something is lacking to me, and that I am not quite perfect, unless I had within me some idea of a Being more perfect than myself”
His idea of a perfect idea would fit in the imaginary category. He would have to make an idea that is greater than himself which seems impossible. My idea for perfection would be impossible to reach. I can try to get really close to my idea of a perfect idea but there will probably be a better modification of my idea that comes after my time.
Descartes explains that everything may not stay the same to what we remember and tries to decipher whether it is still what we remember it as previously. The wax example describes the consistency of wax from a honey comb. The senses take in the features of the original wax like the taste, size, smell, color. However, after a few modifications of these things we are confused whether or not it is still the was that we formerly knew. It may have different attributes to its previous form but it is still the wax. Someone seeing it for the first time will not believe that it was wax in the first place nonetheless, the mind remember when it first encountered the object. The conclusion of his wax example is that thing may not appear the same from the beginning but it doesn’t make it any less a piece of wax from its original form.
This fits into the main dualism argument because it is trying to separate the mind and the body. A person’s body may change over the years by getting saggy, spotted, and may not work anymore for some. Does that make that person any less of who they were when they were a child? I do not believe that does. Their mind stays true to their personality for the most part. Dualism describes how both the mind and body work together to fulfill everyday tasks. It doesn’t seem plausible to have one work without the other. The thought of a spirit being in the body and set free when the person reaches death is an extreme accusation. I have nothing to prove it wrong however, I am skeptical to the thought. I am in no position to say that the statement above is false. I would like to believe that there is a better place after this life is over but there is no need to dedicate m life to the effort of proving myself correct or incorrect.
The wax may be unrecognizable at the end of all the horrific damage that is thrown upon it and a person may be unrecognizable from the closest of family members after a war or personal battle. Both began as something different from what they appear as now. Having prior knowledge of the beginning makes them the definition of what they first appeared to be but with defected or modified parts. This changes the image but not the mind of the person or the mind of the person who first viewed the honey comb wax.
Descartes believes with absolute certainty that a square will always have four sides and mathematics is universal. The matter about God is a more of a struggle to comprehend. He discusses that dreams may seem as real as ever but they are just illusions that imitates reality or how the person sees reality. A God would not create people to purposely deceive themselves when that all knowing creator is known for being supremely good. So he must be an evil genius making everything Descartes knows as an illusion. He will forever believe that these deceitful objects and option was by the powerful God that is anything but merciful. The reason he believes this is because they are “ancient and commonly known customs” that people just became accustomed to. He will assume that they are false judgements until proven otherwise. I’m not sure if I agree since there is no true way to prove one religion is more true over another.
In my opinion, religion seems to coexist with the same kind of story line with the same leading conclusion for people to strive to become a an overall good person. This is a good idea to live a life however, there is no certainty that any of those religions exist. There is no justification to claim these outrageous, magick filled stories were true. There may have been people at that time era with those names but they probably didn’t do half the actions or events that the folk tales tell. Descartes explain that we cannot justify an idea that is not one of our own. He believes that we need to find a way to justify an idea with a full proof method that will give nothing but absolutely correct results. Descartes is so unsure that anything exists and is unable to accept foolish methods to think that an illusion is anything but deceptive.